In principle, a high-speed train between Northern and Southern California would certainly be "attractive," as your June 21 editorial put it. But attractiveness doesn't necessarily add up to marriageability - and Californians should avoid getting hitched to the specific proposal being prepared for the November 2000 ballot. The California High Speed Rail Authority's staff on June 16 clarified some rather ugly details of their recommendation:

* The San Francisco terminus would be at Fourth and Townsend, not the Transbay Terminal. This would perpetuate the serious disadvantages of the current Caltrain station: no direct access to BART, principal Muni bus or Metro lines, suburban buses, ferries, or indeed the downtown business district. So much for convenience.

* Oakland would be denied a direct high-speed connection. Rather than being invigorated as a business center, which could help moderate our region's sprawl and traffic congestion, downtown Oakland would be economically orphaned yet again.

* The "bullet train" would be financed by a half-cent increase in the state sales tax. Big mistake - our sales tax is already punishingly high. By its nature, any sales tax is regressive: the less you earn, the greater the share of your income it takes. So low-income Californians would subsidize the construction of rapid travel for the business elite (or "Bullet Set" ). Also, a sales-tax hike could divert more purchases to (untaxed) catalog and Internet sales - denying revenue to the state (and its cities and counties) for transportation or any other purpose.

As your editorial states, a substantial federal grant is in order to help build any future high-speed rail system. But the state's share of any investment should be raised from fairer sources - such as our state income, capital gains, corporate or (long-frozen) gas tax. And no system should get a green light without direct downtown connections to both San Francisco and Oakland.

A hard-bought campaign&lt;

Now that Clint Reilly has forced the lifting of the voluntary spending cap on this year's mayoral election, we can look forward to a long, hard-bought campaign of endless advertising.

While Mr. Reilly may believe that spending a personal fortune insulates him from being influenced by special interests, his move will force other candidates to bargain with big money in order to to compete. The result may be four years of a mayor who pays back his campaign contributors with sweet deals made behind closed doors, something The City has seen enough of recently.

Raising money, employing political consultants, and blitzing the airwaves are not skills needed to run San Francisco, and will never fix the Muni or help the homeless.

A worthwhile mayor balances the needs and wishes of San Francisco's residents and businesses without selling out to special interests. By exceeding the voter-approved spending limit, Mr. Reilly is sending a strong message about how much he respects the will of the people. Richard Cusick San Francisco

Doctor, unionize thyself&lt;

It is indeed sad to realize that physicians find it necessary to resort to unionization in an attempt to cope with the many developments in recent decades that have so politicized medicine and eroded the professional integrity of its practitioners.

One would think that, in a country that allegedly recognizes the right of free association, no one would be prevented from joining a labor union. But, in the news stories announcing this move by physicians, we are informed that the government will permit unions only in the case of physicians who are employees. Self-employed physicians will be denied the right to join a union, a right most of us had always assumed was applicable to everyone.

What is most distressing in all this, is to observe that most physicians have become so intimidated, they are reluctant to assert their right to take action aimed at restoring their autonomy and improving their prospects for higher incomes. They seem to accept the popular altruistic nonsense that in resigned servitude to patients they are to have no concern for themselves.

Thus, unionization is proclaimed as a measure intended mainly, if not solely, for the benefit of patients.

But, realistically, who wants to have to rely on a medical profession consisting of individuals who lack the self-respect and moral courage to demand that they be allowed to practice in a free market, where the services they render and the fees they charge are a matter of voluntary agreement, strictly between them and their patients? The answer: no one who values sound medical practice and simple justice. Joseph Curran Daly City

Checking out roommates&lt;

Supervisor Mark Leno seeks to help tenants who want to replace a roommate. His rule that would allow replacements without a written application subverts an important protection that both landlords and tenants share.

Anyone who has ever lived in a building with a bad neighbor knows how hard it is to cure that situation. It's a living hell for all concerned.

Prevention is best. That is why some are asking that before any roommate moves in, the landlord be given an application and a chance to check this person out, and then have the right only to "reasonably" refuse that prospect.

This would not only shield the landlord (and tenant) from deadbeats and rent dodgers, but may screen and protect present tenants from people with shadowy or even dangerous backgrounds.

Is a prior written approval, with checkout, too much to ask for good neighbors?

Redefining war&lt;

The Clinton War was ended not by unprecedented and brutal bombing raids but, largely, by diplomatic efforts.

A costly, undeclared and unconstitutional war was thrust not only on Yugoslavia, which had not attacked the U.S. or any of the NATO members, but also on the American taxpayers. The helpless American has already shelled out over $3 billion and billions more will be extracted to wage "peace" for donkey's years.

Saving innocent people from ethnic cleansing: Killing hundreds and multiplying the refugee problem a hundred-fold. Defensive Alliance: An offensive alliance that undertakes unprovoked heavy bombing missions against a non-NATO-member-country.

Now Playing:

Peacekeeping: Sending heavily armed occupation forces to a country that does not want them.

Safeguarding democracy: Arming and militarily helping and encouraging a terrorist, secessionist rebel group and giving a call to oust another country's president. Yatindra Bhatnagar Fremont&lt;

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.